SEXY CELEBRITY

Friday, July 8, 2011

The solution for all this divisive arguments ? Sue USCIS for making all categories current in July 2007 when there weren't that many visa numbers available.

Many of the late PD holders wouldn't be in this discussion if we are successful with this lawsuit. :rolleyes:

wallpaper #39;American Idol#39; Reject Casey

Haley and Casey#39;s performance

bkarnik

08-06 10:38 AM

This subtlety does not matter. From USCIS point of view, if you entered on Lion Visa you are a Lion, if you came in on Monkey visa you are a monkey. These visas are not based on your genetic makeup, but on the fact that under what category your zoo (employer) filed your visa. Otherwise how come monkeys interfiled and became Lion?? :D:D

I worry about the poor Lion on a Monkey visa...in his anxiety to get a green card and finally be able to roar like a lion again he may also start to suffer from the COLTS disease...poor Lion on a Monkey visa suffering from COLTS!!:D:D:D:D

SCHTUPPING: American Idol

pd_recapturing

08-05 08:29 AM

Friend, How many times, you need to know that even job requirements do get rigged by lawyers and employers to accommodate ppl in eb2/eb3 ...and its not jumping the line ...the person has to restart the labor and 140 in order to change the category ...u cant compare it with labor substitution (if u r comparing !!)

2011 Haley and Casey#39;s performance

PHOTO Contestants Casey Abrams

nojoke

04-14 03:18 PM

I cannot agree more. I have been trying to drill this into some peoples brain but they are so adamant on renting and has made this thread into a rent vs buy argument. I finally gave up. I am not saying that this is the right time to buy. Fast forward 2 or 2+ years, lets assume the market is good. Then when it comes to rent vs buy I advocate buying a house.

Let�s say you have a small kid and you are living in an apartment, after 10 years you save enough money to buy a big house and you then eventually you buy it. Then you ask the your kid �do you like the house?�. He will reply �it�s very nice dad, but can you give you give my childhood now?.�. Go figure out guys. If you are not planning on going back for a very long time then at-least get a life in the country you reside and when the housing market is good.

Where do you get the idea that the child will loose the life in apartments and then get back after buying a house?:confused: It would be nice if we can buy the house on the day one when we join the job. Or even nicer if our parents got us a house in US before we came here:D. Unfortunately there are circumstances that prevent us buying a house. The biggest one is this bubble and the madness of multiple bidding that insanely pushed the real estate prices, all the while the realtors and mortgage brokers where making 300K or 500K yearly income selling shoe boxes for half a million and generating slogans like "you will be priced out forever", "they are not manufacturing any more land", "housing is always a good investment", "renting is throwing away money".

This guy changes sides based on the audience, check out his latest rhetoric, looks like he is feeling the heat from the results of the current elections:

...Zakaria refers to "CNN's Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes" and Jonathan Alter describes those who agree with me as "nativist Lou Dobbsians." But Alter and Zakaria are far too bright to not know better. I've never once called for a restriction on legal immigration -- in fact, I've called for an increase, if it can be demonstrated that as a matter of public policy the nation requires more than the one million people we bring into this country legally each year.....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/Dobbs.Nov15/index.html

american idol haley and casey.

Macaca

05-02 05:38 PM

Don't kowtow to China now (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/dont-kowtow-to-china-now/story-fn59niix-1226047967727) By Paul Dibb | The Australian

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard's visit to China has confirmed important strategic priorities for Australia. She called for Australia and China to gradually increase their defence co-operation as a means to promote good relations and understanding of each other. She also talked about wanting to see increased military transparency by China.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith says he has also made it very clear to his Chinese counterpart that Australia expects China to abide by, and conduct itself, in accordance with international norms, including the international law of the sea.

Given China's military build-up and its more aggressive behaviour of late in the East and South China Seas, these are entirely legitimate strategic interests for Australia.

While Gillard has made it plain that she does not support the idea of the US and its allies containing China, her strong support of the US alliance during her recent visit to Washington will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing. It was appropriate that the Australian PM first visit Japan and South Korea before going to China. The fact is that the US, Japan and South Korea are - like us - democracies and allies of America. China will never be our ally.

None of this undermines the PM's objective of encouraging increased military co-operation and defence links. We have to understand what China intends to do with its military forces in future.

These are non-trivial issues for Australia over the next two or three decades. Of course it is sensible policy to encourage Beijing to be a responsible emerging great power and to be closely engaged in the development of security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

It is also good policy to engage China across the full range of our bilateral relationship - political, economic, defence, cultural and human rights.

But as Beijing's power inevitably grows this suggests that in parallel with engagement we should also have a policy of hedging against a more belligerent China in future.

The Australian defence white paper of May 2009 states that by 2030 China will be the strongest Asian military power by a considerable margin and that its military modernisation will be increasingly characterised by the development of power projection capabilities.

As China becomes more powerful economically, it can be expected to develop more substantial military capabilities befitting its size. But, as the white paper notes, the pace, scope and structure of China's military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern.

If China does not become more transparent, questions will inevitably arise about the purpose of its military development plans. Beijing is developing some quite impressive capabilities that will eventually make it more hazardous for the US and its allies to operate in China's maritime approaches with impunity. This is increasingly recognised to be the case by the US and Japan.

In Australia, there have been some fantasies lately suggesting we should be able to develop forces capable of attacking China directly. That is dangerous and stupid. We can, however, aspire to building force elements - including submarines - that would contribute usefully to a US-led coalition force, which would include Japan and Australia.

This is not to see China as the next inevitable enemy. Now and foreseeably it will not have the awesome military strength of the former Soviet Union. And Beijing has no experience whatsoever of prosecuting a modern war.

China needs a basically peaceful strategic environment so that it can give priority to governing an increasingly restive population of 1.3 billion.

China is not a country without weaknesses. We need to remember this before we conclude that China will continue to rise and rise and not experience serious hurdles.

To take one example, the one-child policy has resulted in a rapidly ageing population.

By 2014, China's working-age numbers will begin to decline and by 2040 some 30 per cent of China's population will be over 60 years old.

This will inevitably have serious implications for economic growth rates, which are already predicted to decline to about 7 per cent a year compared with 10-12 per cent growth previously.

There are many other political, economic, environmental and corruption problems facing China in the 21st century.

We should be wary of straight line extrapolations that predict China's inevitable growth to a position of regional supremacy.

There are other geopolitical factors at work.

If China becomes more aggressive it will face a closing of the ranks in Asia. Already, its more confrontational stance over maritime disputes and its unquestioning support of North Korea has led Japan and South Korea to be more pro-American.

While it is true that many countries in the region, including Australia, are increasingly dependent on China for our economic wellbeing, there is growing unease about China's military build-up and its increasingly aggressive attitude over its territorial claims.

The fact is that China's only really close friends in Asia are North Korea, Burma and Pakistan. India will inevitably find itself uncomfortable with China's growing power and that is already the case with Vietnam. Other middle powers, such as Indonesia, will also have to take account of how a more assertive China conducts itself.

We have two scenarios here. The first is a China that continues to focus on its economic wellbeing and which increasingly sees it in its interest to be part of building a co-operative regional security environment (what Beijing calls "a harmonious region"). The second scenario is the one we must hedge against: it involves a militarily stronger and more dangerous China.

The jury is out on which direction China will take. It is not prudent at present to panic and to build forces supposedly capable of tearing an arm off China. Nor is it time to kowtow and acknowledge the inevitability of Chinese primacy accompanied by, as some would have it, the equally inevitable decline of a US fatally weakened by its current economic difficulties.

Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. In 1978, as deputy director of defence intelligence, he visited China to open up defence relations.

Another kind of Chinese History (http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3164&Itemid=206) By Mark O'Neill | Asia Sentinel

Look what really does not make sense about the "Consulting company" portion is that management consulting companies like BCG, Mckenzie or the Big 4 consulting firms have a business model where they "outsource" employees for projects to other companies. So, as it stands, these companies will not be able to hire anyone from top business schools. And we are not talking about desi consulting companies here (no pun intended).

Again, this bill embodies the basic principle that displaces US workers do not want to understand: "What is good for the economy may not be good for an individual".

And I say that because I have been myself displaces 2 times in my life, and every time, I have fallen (or stumbled), I have walked an extra mile to get a better life.

I just feel sorry for people like me and many others who came to this country with a different mindset and now find themselves in the midst of the worst anti-immigrant clime that has existed in a long time.

That said, I feel obligated to remind everyone - "Do yourself a favor and do everything within your means to make a meaningful change, self-help is the best help you will get"

- Raj

2010 SCHTUPPING: American Idol

American Idol 2011 (Top 6)

nojoke

04-06 04:00 PM

It was crazy till last year. Things started going south from this year begining. I am seeing foreclosures and auctions here in bay area. There are price reductions of 100K in the mls listings. This is just starting. It is a matter of time. Some more quotes... ----------------------------------- “Bay Area home sales have plummeted to their lowest level in two decades, making the wait between commission checks unbearable for many agents. Bonnie Stevens, an agent in Pleasanton, began her real estate career in 1995, at the end of the market’s last down cycle.”

“‘This is actually worse than 1995. There are agents in my office who have been in the business for 30 years telling me that this is the worst they’ve seen,’ she said.”

“During her 13 years as an agent, a good year for Stevens has meant selling 15 to 18 homes. So far this year, she’s sold only one.”

The other posters are correct in that they are telling you that your spouse is covered under section 245k. That is as long as a person hasn't overstayed an I-94 card by more then six months; no major criminal or health issues then everything is reset upon leaving and re-entering USA.

However; USCIS officers try to find other ways to nail people when a person needs protections such as 245k.

I have seen a couple of cases where people have had an i-140 denied due to education. They appealed and re-filed another 140 and in the eta 750b they omitted certain education diplomas that were listed in the first application. USCIS then accused them of fraud and a permanent barrier to getting greencard.

Now; it looks like the officer is going down the same road on your husbands case. Accusing your husband of essentially fraud by claiming that he was working with a company listed in the g-325a biographical information when it appears to uscis that he wasn't working with them. 245k or any other part of immigration law which could protect him becomes difficult to use when they accuse you of fraud.

To get a better grasp of things; you need to post the RFE's that he received on his original case (don't post general stuff but be specific) and what they are saying now. It will allow people to help you better assess the situation.

Particularly worried about what you just mentioned about USCIS using other means to deny application - this seems to go against the principle of 245(K) which was to allow folks to get GC irrespective of a violation in the past. If the intent is to not let folks use 245(K), why even publish such a law? MOre importantly, for folks who have been staying and working in a country for many years (read > 5 yrs), it is possible that they might have some glitches and 245(K) was there to cover that (I am not saying every one has gone through this but a lot of people in 2000/01/02 went through this).

What are the grounds for I-485 denial if my I-140 is approved?

The followings are the grounds for an I-485 denial. a. Some crimes committed by the applicant. b. The applicant is out of status or illegally worked for over 180 days. c. If the I-140 is employer-sponsored, the applicant changes job before I-485 has been pending for 180 days. d. The applicant drastically changes occupation or job field. e. The applicant travels abroad without Advance Parole (H/L visa or status is excepted). f. The applicant’s failure to RFE or fingerprint.

hair PHOTO Contestants Casey Abrams

American Idol Finalist Party

texcan

08-05 01:43 PM

Agree with you... Also let me share a story ....

Once upon a time, two ferries were taking passengers to an Island called Green Land. First ferry was calle EB2 and the other ferry was Eb3. Both these ferries were jam packed with little or no room. But EB2 was in slightly better position with few spaces to spare.

These ferries were navigating at legendary slow speed because the crew and the drivers (read USCIS) were very slow. Also the fuel (read visa numbers) was not enough so now and then it needed to get some assitance from the base (read lawmakers).

The base has put out an option to move from one ferry to another. So the people in Eb3 ferry decided to swim to EB2. One who could not start cursing their fate and the ones in EB2 boat start screaming to prevent that happening.

Soon the passengers forgot that the reason why the ferries are running slow and start blaming each other.

An old man on the shore sighed and said to himself, wouldn't it be nice if these people had concentratred their effort on the right place.

Sunnysurya,

Thanks for giving me ear, and thought to my points.

Indians(myself included) were ruled by British for years, i never believed history that people can fight so much with each other that they forget to work together; now i know better.

We got to get togther and work with each other (add efforts), but sometimes we are working together but ironically against each other and net result is wasted effort.

Lets not waste energy by stopping people from actions even if we may not like their tools or techniques. Lets work more and get something done.

I had lot of hopes for skilled immigrants under the democratic majority both in house and senate. They are now slowly waning. As I see it, the democratic party in US (elsewhere except South) is now taken over by union and leftist liberalsl in the South it is hijacked by Blue Dog Democrats. I see no hope.

DailyKos is a liberal activist group, with a LOT of influence on Democrats of all hues. Why, most Senators, Congressmen, Presidential Candidates regulary start threads, discussions etc.

Go there and see that is going on. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/30/95526/3669)

Though the discussion is mostly on H1B, there are few gems on Green Cards. This one particularly caught my mind.

Some Leavening (1+ / 0-) Recommended by:fastwacks While I don't dispute the overall study, it may not reflect the current market. As someone who places software engineers, I'm finding it hard to find well trained people and companies often reject them before we get to the price negotiation stage. A lot of the people we find are on H1-Bs or have green cards. We are searching in the same pools as everyone else (and with our own sources as well) so it's not like we are selecting by place of origin. So, it looks to me from admittedly annecdotal evidence that there really is a shortage of native talent.

I think a part of this is because the ranks of U.S. engineers were virtually obliterated in the last seven years by the downturn. Many of those people simply left the field. Engineers who were here from India and other countries on H1-Bs got sent home, but they quickly found jobs that were outsourced to their countries. That means that their job skills continued to improve, while people in the U.S. found jobs (if they could) at Mervins and Wal-Mart. They left the Valley in droves.

The result is that it is very difficult to find people with current skills if they have been living in the U.S. And those who would possibly re-enter the market are justifiably gun shy about moving back to Santa Clara County.

This includes a large number of women (and men, for that matter) who decided that the downturn was an opportune moment to stop working and have a baby. It's difficult to cover up a two- or three-year gap in your resume. Companies want to find people with current skills. This is partly related to another, negative, change--the unwillingness of companies to invest in their "human capital." They won't train anyone on their own dime if they can get away with not doing it.

The U.S. needs to jumpstart the local tech worker group by putting some real muscle behind the effort. That means more than job training. We have to fund internships or something that will get these people real job experience on current products.

Oh, and then there's the whole pay scale thing. Would you live in Silicon Valley on $35/hour? If you didn't have a family, then probably no problem. That is to say, if you are here on an H1-B from India, then you'd scramble to get the job. But if you have a non-working partner or more than one child, then you are probably not going to leave Nebraska for the hot lights of Redwood Shores. At least you wouldn't if you had any idea what it costs to live in Redwood City. Start by bringing a couple hundred K to plunk down on your new home--average price somewhere north of a half million.

Think, liberally.

IV should totally change its strategy; drop all activism on the legislative front. Instead, start mass campaings of letter writing to DoS, Employers, Corporations, and Yes, law makers, both Congressmen and Senators.

hot #39;American Idol#39; Recap: Casey

Haley Reinhart and Casey

bfadlia

01-09 04:26 PM

This is the simple logic everybody tried to convey to Refugee_now in 15 pages of this thread. But he don't understand or don't want to !!!!

so.. by your logic, Al qaeda has declared war on the United states (they did, OBL issued that declaration some time in the late 90s) civilians die in each war, so alqaeda had every right to kill civilians in 9/11? Of course not! Intentional targeting of civilians is inexcusable and constitutes a war crime and we should never cease to protest it regardless if it is done by a primitive terrorist or from the comfort of an F-16.

After one year of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, public approval ratings for Congress have sunk below their level when Republicans were still in control. A Post poll this month put the approval score at 32 percent, the disapproval at 60.

In the last such survey during Republican control, congressional approval was 36 percent. So what are the Democrats to make of that? They could be using this interregnum before the start of their second year to evaluate their strategy and improve their standing. But if Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House and leader of their new majority, is to be believed, they are, instead, going to brag about their achievements.

In a year-end "fact sheet," her office proclaimed that "the Democratic-led House is listening to the American people and providing the New Direction the people voted for in November. The House has passed a wide range of measures to make America safer, restore the American dream and restore accountability. We are proud of the progress made this session and recognize that more needs to be done."

While surveys by The Post and other news organizations show that the public believes little or nothing of value has been accomplished in a year of bitter partisan wrangling on Capitol Hill, Pelosi claims that "the House has had a remarkable level of achievement over the first year, passing 130 key measures -- with nearly 70 percent passing with significant bipartisan support."

That figure is achieved by setting the bar conveniently low -- measuring as bipartisan any issue in which even 50 House Republicans broke ranks to vote with the Democrats. Thus, a party-line vote in which Democrats supported but most Republicans opposed criminal penalties for price-gouging on gasoline was converted, in Pelosi's accounting, into a "bipartisan" vote because it was backed by 56 Republicans.

There is more sleight of hand in her figures. Among the "key measures" counted in the news release are voice votes to protect infants from unsafe cribs and high chairs, and votes to require drain covers in pools and spas. Such wins bulk up the statistics. Many other "victories" credited to the House were later undone by the Senate, including all the restrictions on the deployment of troops in Iraq. And on 46 of the measures passed by the House, more than one-third of the total, the notation is added, "The president has threatened to veto," or has already vetoed, the bill.

One would think that this high level of institutional warfare would be of concern to the Democrats. But there is no suggestion in this recital that any adjustment to the nation's priorities may be required. If Pelosi is to be believed, the Democrats will keep challenging the Bush veto strategy for the remaining 12 months of his term -- and leave it up to him to make any compromises.

An honest assessment of the year would credit the Democrats with some achievements. They passed an overdue increase in the minimum wage and wrote some useful ethics legislation. They finally took the first steps to increase the pressure on Detroit to improve auto mileage efficiency.

But much of the year's political energy was squandered on futile efforts to micromanage the strategy in Iraq, and in the end, the Democrats yielded every point to the president. That left their presidential candidates arguing for measures in Iraq that have limited relevance to events on the ground -- a potential weak point in the coming election.

The major Democratic presidential hopefuls all have their political careers rooted in Congress, and the vulnerabilities of that Congress will in time come home to roost with them. Today, Democrats take some comfort from the fact that their approval ratings in Congress look marginally better than the Republicans'. In the most recent Post poll, Democrats are at 40 percent approval; Republicans, at 32 percent. But more disapprove than approve of both parties.

That is another reason it behooves the Democrats to get real about their own record on Capitol Hill. It needs improvement. And in less than a year, the voters will deliver their own verdict.

tattoo american idol haley and casey.

New American Idol Couple?

copsmart

01-01 09:39 AM

Wish You All a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

May god give this world the strength and courage to tackle Pakistan and its terrorist activities.

Why should we waste our resources when Pakistanis are doing the damage by themselves??? The joke is Pak blaming some poor Indian for a bomb blast which was quickly owned up by a domestic terrorist organization!! Pakistan is a begging bowl which is trying to blackmail US by threatening to pull out troops from Afgan border..so US and UK are trying to pacify India telling them that they will put pressure on Pak to do something. And you know what a bigger joke is? your slum dog cum president who told Larry King that no one from "his part of the country" were involved in the attack!!! What is his part of the country? his toilet seat??? It has not been 1 year since he killed his wife he was jumping all over Sarah Palin like a horny dog!! Barking dogs seldom bite, so don't just thump your chest just yet. When the fox has to die it runs towards the lion. That is what Pakistan is doing by pretending to pose as if it will go to war with India. If India attacks Pak will fold it's tail between its legs and run to US, like Nawaz sherif did during the Kargil war. We have beaten you in 4 wars, how may more beatings will it take for it to sink into your thick skull that Pakistan can NEVER beat India. Period!!

Pakistan will disintegrate with in the next few years if they don't seek India's support in whacking them Jehadi SOB's. Baluchitan, NWFP, Sindh are all going to be independent countries and the Pak president can easily rule " his part of the country"

Buddyinsfo you might try to bring friction among Indians by pitting people from different states against each other, but remember when it comes to any outside force we are all Indians first and we will Kick your Ass...

This is like an ant taking on an elephant, if half the men in Punjab, Guj and Rajastan stand on the border and Pee; Pakistan will be washed away in a flood of Urine...If you poor people want to get killed, there are better painless ways than enrage India. So it is in Paks best interest to request India to come in clean up the terrorist camps which are now turning against Pakistan itself!!

Pranab Muks, the foreign minister needs to be applauded (?) for creating a drama of sorts by setting up the army against Pakis assuming that the Pakis will give in to the pressure and return the militants that India is looking for. On the other hand, the Prime Minister ManMohan Singh was consistently giving out statements that India is not in favour of war and never was (completely contradicting Pranab Muks' moves) and as per the latest news that emerged out of nowhere (???) there seemed to have been some kinda communication between the military officials of both the countries and they've come to some sort of understanding that war was not in the best interest of both the countries and only dialogue was as India was apprehensive as to what Pak's response to a military strike wud be...the drama continues and its a big joke. With China playing the mediator and India (silently and 100% dependent on US and UK put pressure on Pak but to no avail) had to succumb to the boomeranged efforts by playing the peace game now. One only needs to wait to see what happens next. But one thing is for sure...India will never strike Pakistan at a point when there is really no open support from anywhere. At some point (yesterday?) the honorable Prime Minister was looking for Iran to pressurise Pakistan (by calling Ahmadinejad) and this in itself speaks volumes !!! India is making a joke of itself...Had it been US, they'd have made a strike at Paki's terrorist sites in no time (as they did after 9/11). Its been over a month of Mumbai strikes and the way India is showing its weakness makes us wonder if they really have solid evidence against Pakistan. The latest news goes like...The Mumbai Govt has ordered probes into the attacks...Wonder what needs to be probed now(after one month) and that too after the entire nation has been made to believe that it was always Pakistan and claiming and shouting at the top of their lungs that they had SUFFICIENT evidence!!!!

dresses Haley Reinhart and Casey

American Idolquot; contestant

SunnySurya

08-05 09:17 AM

If you find enough people and have solid plan in place, I am willing to pay anywhere between $500 to $1000 towards the lawyer's fees.... Friends, I need to find out how many people are interested in pursuing this option, since the whole interfiling/PD porting business (based on a year 2000 memo) can seriously undermine the EB2 category.

I am currently pursuing some initial draft plans with some legal representation, so that a sweeping case may be filed to end this unfair practice. We need to plug this EB3-to-EB2 loophole, if there is any chance to be had for filers who have originally been EB2.

More than any other initiative, the removal of just this one unfair provision will greatly aid all original EB2 filers. Else, it can be clearly deduced that the massively backlogged EB3 filers will flock over to EB2 and backlog it by 8 years or more.

I also want to make this issue an action item for all EB2 folks volunteering for IV activities.

The attachment upload fails for me as well but goddamn UN, you are unbelievable.

1. Your knowledge of the specifics and technicalities and access to information is very impressive

2. And you go out of your way to share it with others

That being said, I skimmed through the document real quick and the part that caught my eye was the AAOs point on the applicant never having resided/lived in the same state as the employer, which you had also mentioned in one of your earlier posts.

Wouldn't that be quite common in most consulting scenarios? What if the beneficiary/applicant has never lived in the same state as the petitioning employer but has lived in and worked for the employer (at client locations, offsite assignments) in nearby bordering states, from before the labor was filed and until long after the 485 was filed. Do you see the USCIS ever having issues with that?

That whenever a company now applies for an H1 ( not that many companies are going to do in this climate) they have to put in as many locations/states as possible? By your suggestions if USCIS is deeming most h1b companies as 'Staffing' companies(and if it allows them to exist) then almost all H1 LCA should contain 4-5 states in which the H1B could work? How would prevailing wage calculation be done in that case? Or for that matter if each time an H1B candidate goes to work in a different location and the employer(staffing) company files 'Amend petition for location' does the prevailing wage factor come in to picture?

your advise in this could help some people who are in consulting so that they can insist with their employers to file for 'amend' in case they are working elsewhere.

the slump may last 2 years atleast (i.e. prices falling) ...there maybe extended period of stagnant prices (2 - 3 more years)..every year that the prices don't rise is a loss ..when you take inflation into account (this is strictly from investment point of view). the article talks only about support to housing ..it does not say that there will be huge opposing factor of baby boomers selling their homes (and going for rentals -- this explains why builders are building more rental units) or going to their grave. Immigration is the unknown factor but quality of immigrants will matter too ... as for buying a house in california ..my friend who has a townhome in bay area says that his advice to anyone who wants to come to california is ..DON'T COME HERE ..let alone buy a house ..since state is almost bankrupt ..taxes are rising, school size increasing etc etc..it makes more sense to rent, make money and get out of california

unitednations

08-14 09:12 PM

Sorry to post in this thread, but I was wondering if United Nations would be kind enough to answer two questions for me (well, actually one is from my colleague). They are kind of generic so it might help other people too, I hope. I posted this on other threads but I havent gotten any responses for the longest time, so Im posting here. Very sorry to those who are following this thread for the original topic.

1) From my colleague: As per his family customs, his mothers FIRST name was also changed after marriage. Before marriage she was Vimla Patil, and now she is Anasuya Deshpande. She uses her married first name and last name on her passport, childrens birth certificate, etc. Only her school leaving has her maiden first name, maiden last name.

He was wondering how to put this info on his I-485/G-325a form. They ask for Mothers Maiden name in one column, and then first name in the next. If he puts down Patil and then Anasuya - it wont be correct as such a person doesnt exist. What is the best way to represent her name. (remember, the birth cert that he will be submitting for himself will have her name as Anasuya Deshpande)

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

2) My question (and this has been asked before, but no one has a rock solid answer). My husband's labor has been approved, approved I-140, his priority date is Oct 2006. I received a labor sub (please dont scream at me.. I dint have anything to do with the matching... it just came my way:o) , but pending I-140, my priority date (if I-140 is approved) will be Feb 2005.

I wanted to know if we should only choose one of these two applications to proceed further or file two I-485 applications- One with me as primary and him as beneficiary, and the other with him as primary. There are these rare postings where people have said that USCIS can reject both applications/ drop both or deny one initially itself, or ask you to choose one upfront. No one has talked about successful multiple filings, so we dont have unbiased statistics in this space. What is your thought on this issue? Which way would you recommend we proceed? Frankly, I am nervous about my application until the I-140 clears, (and my I-140 was only applied in July 2007) ... yet my husbands pd is almost 20 months after mine. Please enlighten.

Thanks!

FYI, both of us have been in the U.S since 2000, but for various strokes of timely bad luck we couldnt file until Dec 2006, So I hope there arent too many hard feelings from people who have also waited as long as we have. I know the feeling.

Where they ask for her name; then on a separate piece of paper she should explain the different names. Isn't much of a problem.

Surprisingly; people in the situation where both spouses have 140's pending/approved have opted to file four 485's. My experience is that just about everyone has chosen this option.

Only risk is that somehow when you file multiple 485 filings; uscis opens up two different alien numbers for you. Once they figure it out then they have to consolidate your files which may take some additional time. However; this is very rare that this happens because there is enough detail that a person puts on the g-325a that uscis systems would be able to detect that a person has multiple filings and they won't create a second alien number (file).

Biggest advantage:

One of the spouses 140 gets denied/revoked and can't use portability.

One of the spouses gets stuck in name check and other spouse can't get approved until primary gets cleared through name check.

Divorce/separation is an issue (surprisingly this comes up quite often where in some dispute one of the spouses wants to cancel others greencard....happens more often then people think).

One of the spouses actually pass away (i know of a situation such as this and the other spouse left the country).